not reveal itself, we would probably look at other opportunities first. if there is not capacity within the city's budget to solve this problem, we will have to try to solve it in a different way. after that we will look that repurchasing this asset. once we have ownership, we are confident that we are getting in at a base price that is competitive. so, financial risk to the city is minimized. i am not trying to say that there is not a risk, but it must be repurchased for city use, or disposed of. >> what happens to the medical examiner's office? upo>> we restart the search. that is what we do all the time. supervisor mirkarimi: if i may

make a suggestion, and i am not sure if you have space under article four, i know that in conversations with the mayor it has been important for him to find incubator space here in this city. i know that he has been talking about finding spaces that are affordable. i do not know if that has been considered. i know that four years is not an incredible amount of time, but it is an incredible amount of incubator space to have time for companies to get started here. i know that in the long term, he is interested in permanently helping manufacturing. just something that i thought of. i am not sure if that action was explored. >> we can certainly look at those options. supervisor kim: thank you. supervisor chu: we have taken

public comment? this item is before the committee. for me, just understanding a couple of things. given that the budget and a less rigid budget analysts -- given that the budget analyst chose to relocate the cme to that location and that we have accreditation that is a longstanding issue, perhaps having to move tenants from hall of justice, knowing that the contractual rights will expire on september 1, when we go on recess in the month of august, i would be interested in moving this forward to act on it. colleagues?

supervisor kim has made a motion to move it forward without recommendation. thoughts? supervisor mirkarimi: i am on the line on this. i am looking at the request be submitted to one-and-a-half years ago. i have to say that i am fixated on this idea that when we had that major setback with our crime lab, the national academy of sciences had, i thought, a very helpful guide before us. i thought that that would give us a new lease on looking forward to how san francisco can even sell its police forensics lab -- evince its police forensics lab.

something that the met -- national academy of sciences is trying to abide by, you are making this move, which i think would have been, in terms of the capital infrastructure, moving to a whole new facility would have been a perfect opportunity to move the crime lab. i am torn, because i absolutely see the need for this to happen, given the dilapidated state of the hall of justice and everything that is occurring. that made itself evident. but to do this right, i think we could have seized upon the opportunity to do something more brand. i will go ahead and move this with the recommendation and reservation. supervisor chu: we do have the motion to send it forward with a recommendation. i would imagine that the department can follow up with the supervisor to provide

information on that relevant point, how we colocate facilities or integrate them. i would hope that that conversation would happen between the department and the supervisor's office. we have the recommendation to put that forward to the full board without objection. next item, please. >> item #3. resolution approving the fourth amendment to the agreement with serco, inc. to replace, upgrade and add parking meters; conduct an education campaign and expand the pilot testing of new residential parking management strategies in support of the sfpark pilot project, and to increase the contract not-to- exceed amount by $22,000,000 utilizing a loan from the metropolitan transportation commission for a total not-to- exceed amount of $44,080,000. supervisor chu: thank you very much. >> good morning, supervisors. i am relieved to be before you

on this first non-controversial mca contract in a long time. as you know, we have been working very hard at implementing the programs are in august of 2011. also in supporting the program they have given us a $22 million loan to expand the project. what is before you is an amendment to the contract that allows us to spend the loan, providing infrastructure for the project. seeking your approval on the proposed recommendations, i am happy to answer any questions you might have. supervisor chu: thank you very much. >> madam chairman, on the

committee -- madam chairman, members of the committee, the first payment repayment of this loan has been made. we recommend that you approve this resolution. supervisor chu: thank you. let's go to public comment. are there any members of the public that wish to speak? seeing no one, public comment is closed. colleagues? supervisor mirkarimi: motion to send forward with recommendations. >> without objection. supervisor chu: before we call item no. 4, i meant to think of -- thank mr. young. your work yesterday on the budget, you were very important in making sure that everything was in place. i wanted to thank you in front of the committee. thank you.

[applause] >> item four. item 4. resolution approving the first amendment to contract no. cs - 159 between the san francisco municipal transportation agency and the transbay joint powers authority for transbay transit center program services pursuant to charter section 9.118 in an amount not to exceed $3,280,677. supervisor chu: thank you. for this item, we have joy hoolihan from the mta. >> good afternoon, president, supervisors. for this amendment, basically, we are asking for an additional $997,000 for services over the course of the next five years. extending the contract for an additional 11.5 months over the regional contract amount.

basically, it is for traffic calming, bus services, to keep the buses on schedule and on time, and we have already provided the services for the beginning of august of last year. we anticipate the amount of $189,000. if you have any other questions, please let me know. supervisor chu: thank you. i do have some questions, but i will reserve them until after the budget analysts report. >> the amount referenced is and the number that sfmta was provided in services and then would be reimbursed by the joint powers authority. we recommend you recommend the resolution to fund retroactivity since august 9, since services have begun, and that you approve the resolution as amended.

supervisor chu: thank you. with regard to the contract recommendation, i am generally in agreement. i do have a question about management and how and howpco's. the idea would be that we distribute -- particularly related to this transbay project. on the west side, we have traditionally had questions about how dpt cpo's are allocated. we have never really gotten a good response about how it is we and effectively distribute folks across the city. can you tell me a little bit about that and how we would be able to maintain the needs and other parts of the city while we distributing some of the sources

to the tjpa request? >> in the case of the tjpa, this is on overtime sign up. so we are not using the regular resources. it is on a sign that basis. as far as daily resources, we currently have a limited number, so we allocate resources across residential parking permit areas and then general enforcement across the downtown corridor. metering enforcements, a special detail going around doing sidewalk enforcement. we spread the resources we currently have across the city seven days a week, 24/7. we have some hiring plans going on right now also for a small number of resources while we are looking at how sfpark and some of that realignment of how we are managing the parking resources the facts and impacts

our resources as well. supervisor chu: in the management of pco's, where people are allocated, where have you seen the biggest challenges in your operations? i think one of the things we ever before, at least from the residential component, is people may call in and say i have a blocked driveways or something. but they may not see a pco come out for a while. >> it depends on where the call is coming from. depending on where we dispatch from, we can get there pretty quickly, 10, 15 minutes. but if they are calling from the outer sunset, sometimes it takes us 30, 45 minutes to transport. it depends where they are in the city and the time of the day. we have a small group of about

68 resources that just handle small claims called. it may take them a while to get to where the complaint is coming in. supervisor chu: is it typical to see a dispatch not go up to the sunset until 45 minutes? >> it is not typical but it is a time when the we have in our plans. supervisor chu: is that because the typical stocassignment as fr away from the sunset? >> we tried to get a closer resource, if we can. but with the complaint detail, if they are already on a call, they have to stay there and wait. if they are going to do a tow, they have to wait until that tow truck comes. if i do not have other resources to send, it could be a while. supervisor chu: how are those folks sent out? >> they are assigned to sectors.

supervisor chu: are those sectors equally resourceful, in terms of pco's? >> yes, one per sector. supervisor chu: i think that is a bit removed from this item before us. i think we had long been asking about how did is we can make the dpt pco distribution a bit more responsive to neighborhood issues and we are not quite there yet. i would really like to reinvigorate that conversation with you and the mta, as we go forward. >> certainly, my pleasure. thank you. supervisor chu: thank you. have we taken public comment on this item? >> you made the request i did not see anyone come forward. supervisor chu: just to be conservative, is there anyone from the public that would like to comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues?

we have a motion to send the item forward with recommendations. i would definitely be comfortable with that, but i think we need to have a further despite -- conversation on pco distribution. >> madam chair, did you want this to allow to the retroactivity? supervisor chu: yes. we have an amendment according to the budget analyst's recommendations. recommendation will be to send the item to the full board with recommendations. thank you. next item please. >> item 5. resolution authorizing the san francisco municipal transportation agency to amend an expenditure contract with cypress security, llc, to add an additional $18.7 million to continue security services for an additional three years. supervisor chu: thank you very much.

on this item we also have ms. hoolihan from the mta. >> good morning again. this is a three-year extension of the existing contract we have with cypress security. basically, under our first three years, our total expenditure was $14.3 million. under the extension of the three years, this includes an 88 cent per year cost of living increase. the total rebuy amount of the contract is $32.9 million. this is including additional services, which is video data assistance, which helps us poll video the after hours when there is a crime-sensitive case with

sfpd, allows us to that mobile tunnel patrols, additional security staffing at mme. when we initiated this contract, that facility was not fully staffed and occupied. if you have any other questions, i am available to answer them. supervisor chu: why don't we go to the budget analyst's report. >> based on the projected actual contract expenditures, as well as the budget for the three-year extension, the proposed authorized need, we estimated to be about $1.6 million less than the requested. therefore, we recommend you amend this resolution to reduce the requested a total not to exceed contract amount of $34,000,500, to a total not to exceed contract amount of

$32,900,000. we recommend that you approve the resolution. supervisor chu: is this a reduction that you are in agreement with? >> yes, ma'am. supervisor chu: thank you. is there anyone from the public that would like to comment on this item? item 5. >> good morning. you are a city that will fight for it. you are a budget that will fight for your city you are the hero we have been dreaming of you will live for ever knowing together this budget is the one that we did for the city that you love. supervisor chu: thank you. are there any other members of the public that wish to speak on item 5? seeing none, public comment is closed.

colleagues, can we take a motion to amend the not to exceed contract amount lower by $1.6 million and move the item forward to the full board? ok, a motion to that effect. we can do that without objection. item six. >> item 6. resolution approving an amendment to the contract between the treasure island development authority and amec geomatrix, inc., to retroactively extend the term through june 30, 2012. supervisor chu: thank you. we have kelly from the office of economic and workforce development. >> good morning. my name is kelly and i member presenting the office of economic and workforce development this morning. the resolution identified is item six, on the rise as an amendment with amec geomatrix. the men that would retroactively extend the term from june 30, 2011 through june 30, 2012.

the amendment does not include an increase in budget which remains $1,709,000. through this contracts, texas was services provided relief to monitor and oversight of the remediation activities at treasure island as well as assisting treasure island development authority in property transfer negotiations with the navy. amec geomatrix also provides engineering services for treasure island. this resolution authorizing the amendment to the amec geomatrix contract is before this body as required by statute. this concludes my presentation. i'm happy to answer any questions that committee members might have. also, thank you, supervisors, for your past support of this project. supervisor chu: i do not believe we have a budget analyst report on this item, given there is no

general fund impact. if there are no other questions, why don't we open this up to the public. is there anyone from the public that would like to comment on this item? >> you have got city budget style that is what the city says i know you will bring it back today and i want it reached now there is something else i want to say you will fix it up with an geomatrix all over the city you will fix it up with geometrics all over, all over the city now supervisor chu: thank you. any other members of the public that wish to speak on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. i have a motion to send the item forward with recommendations, we can do that without objection.

next item please. >> item 7. ordinance amending the san francisco administrative code by amending section 10.82 to authorize the controller to establish cash difference and overage funds for the use of any county officer or department head or judicial district handling judicial funds; to increase, reduce, or discontinue the funds; require any county officer or department head using such funds to report to the controller; and require the controller to annually report to the board of supervisors regarding the cash difference and overage funds. supervisor chu: thank you. for this item, for the controller's office or to the treasurer's office, who would like to make a presentation? >> good morning, i am with the treasurer's office. the proposed ordinance today

amend the minister did code section 10-82 to abolish the cash difference fund and over to fund and authorizes the control to establish and oversee castor prints and over to fund for any county officer or a department head at the authorized. the treasurer has worked closely with the treasury on this change. we would like to thank mary fitzpatrick and the comptroller's office for their work. we would also like to thank the deputy attorney for drafting the ordinance. the proposed change is in response to an audit finding this is included in the committee package. the audit found some departments were maintaining their own cash and were only reporting to the treasurer periodically, rather than daily, as required. this change is present -- consistent with california law. as i mentioned, we have worked " and nobly with the controller

and treasurer. this ordinance is recommended by the budget and legislative analyst. supervisor chu: anything in the controller's office would like to add to the presentation? >> we are just pleased with the cooperative nature of putting this forward. controller's office is prepared to take on this responsibility. supervisor chu: supervisor kim? supervisor kim: i was curious about the history of this legislation. it says that this was antiquated. how long ago did we put this legislation into place? >> i believe near 2000. supervisor kim: what was the thought process behind the ability of departments to report this on a daily basis? or what was the intent of this legislation originally? >> i think when the government

code was initially written, this was essentially for it if you had a cash tail and you had extra at the end of the day. when cities had much less complex financial operations, it made sense that all the money being funneled into the treasurer would account for that. given that we operate in a different environment now, this change, which is authorized by the government code, it is a good one and makes more sense for the department, and actually reflects what is happening. supervisor kim: i definitely agree. i just wonder how we ever thought it would be possible to daily report this to the treasurer's office. no response. thank you. supervisor chu: thank you. mr. rose? >> madam chair, members of the

committee, this legislation, if approved, referring to your point, supervisor kim, will reduce the individual city department of paperwork by allowing the city to report to the controller on an annual basis, rather than on a daily basis. we recommend you approve the ordinance. supervisor chu: to the comptroller's office, based on my understanding of what the budget analyst as reported, there would not be additional expenses occurred -- incurred. it would be a door through the existing resources? >> that is correct. supervisor chu: thank you. is there anyone from the public that would like to comment on this item? item 7. >> please don't be mean, don't be mean i am begging you your budget is beyond compare and i hope you will be there i hope the budget committee will not be mean

you can have your choice of things and all i can do is sing and bring back the money do not be lean do not be mean. i am begging of view, bring the money. supervisor chu: thank you. any other members of the public who wish to speak on item 7? seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues? we have a motion to send item for with recommendations. without objection. thank you. item eight please. >> item 8. resolution declaring the intent of the city and county of san francisco (city) to: 1) reimburse certain expenditures from proceeds of future bonded indebtedness; 2) authorizing the director of the mayor's office of housing (director) to submit an application and related documents to the

california debt limit allocation committee (cdlac) to permit the issuance of qualified mortgage revenue bonds in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $26,000,000 for 121 golden gate avenue (12. supervisor chu: we have teresa young from the office of mayors housing. >> this is to authorize our office to apply to the california debt limit allocation committee. the amount would be $26 million. this is, with financing and the city is not responsible for the repayment of those bonds. indeed, they would be repaid from the longstanding tax credit program, as well as hud section 202 financing. that is a very competitive process. that financing would be used to

pay the bond. we are only asking authorization to apply, and then we would come back to the board in the spring of 2012 to seek authorization to issue the bond. in terms of the project itself, 90 units of senior housing above the redevelop st. anthony's dining room at the corner of golden gate and jones. it will be a wonderful project was completed. with the redevelopment of this site, we will be able to serve more people in the tenderloin and surrounding communities. supervisor chu: just a quick question with regards to the ability, obligation to pay this back. this is not a general fund obligation? >> absolutely not. true, but financing. supervisor chu: supervisor kim? supervisor kim: i am excited about this project moving forward. i'm excited to be a partner in